Convictions Quashed After a Legal Error: What It Means

On 7 October 2026 the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of five former Barclays traders — three of them convicted a decade ago — because the juries at their trials had been misdirected about the law.

The detail of the case itself probably does not matter much to you. What matters is the route these men took to get back into court years after losing their appeals. That route is open to other people, and it is worth understanding properly — including its limits.

What happened

Alex Pabon, Jay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef and Colin Bermingham were all convicted of conspiracy to defraud at Southwark Crown Court over LIBOR and EURIBOR rate submissions — the first three in 2016, Moryoussef in 2018, Bermingham in 2019. Sentences ran up to eight years. All had appealed and lost. All had served their sentences.

Lord Justice Edis announced on 7 October that the convictions would be quashed, with the court's full written reasons to follow. The Serious Fraud Office did not oppose the appeals.

Why a Supreme Court ruling was the turning point

Nothing new was discovered about what these men did. What changed was a ruling on the law.

On 23 July 2025, in R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. It held that submitting a LIBOR or EURIBOR rate involved a subjective judgement — an opinion about the rate at which a bank could borrow, chosen from a range of possible figures. A submission could therefore only be false or misleading if it did not reflect the submitter's genuine opinion. And whether it did was a question of fact, for the jury. It was not a question of law for the judge.

At Mr Hayes's trial, the judge had in effect directed the jury, as a matter of law, that a rate influenced by commercial advantage could not be a genuine answer. That removed the central question of his defence from the jury and made the trial unfair. The Supreme Court held his conviction could not stand — even though, as the court noted, there was ample evidence on which a properly directed jury could have acted.

That distinction is important and it is easy to miss. The Supreme Court was not declaring anyone innocent. It was saying the jury was never allowed to decide the question it should have decided.

They had already lost their appeals. So how did they get back to court?

Through the Criminal Cases Review Commission — the CCRC, an independent public body that reviews possible miscarriages of justice and can send cases back to the Court of Appeal.

Section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 sets out when it can do that. In summary, it may refer a conviction only if:

• it considers there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld; and
• it so considers because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings that led to the conviction (for a sentence: an argument on a point of law, or information, not raised); and
• an appeal has already been determined, or leave to appeal has been refused.

Section 13(2) allows the CCRC to get round the second and third requirements where there are "exceptional circumstances".

The timeline in these cases shows how the process runs:

• 23 July 2025 — Supreme Court quashes the Hayes and Palombo convictions.
• August 2025 — all five men apply to the CCRC.
• 29 January 2026 — the CCRC refers all five convictions to the Court of Appeal. It stated it had found "no distinguishing factor between these cases and the cases of Mr Hayes and Mr Palombo", and that "the jury misdirection and legal errors have undermined the safety of all the convictions".
• 7 October 2026 — the Court of Appeal quashes the convictions. Lord Justice Edis said of the CCRC: "A great deal of work was done in the Commission leading up to those references."

That is over two years from application to outcome — with a Supreme Court ruling already in hand and the prosecution not opposing.

What this route can and cannot do

The CCRC publishes its own rules on who can apply, and they are worth stating plainly rather than optimistically.

What is in your favour:

• It is free. There is no fee to apply.
• You can apply yourself, without a solicitor. Someone else can also apply on your behalf, and the CCRC will check that you want the review to happen.
• The CCRC does not impose a deadline for applying. The fact that years have passed since your conviction is not in itself a bar.
• You can ask it to look at your conviction, your sentence, or both.

What stands in the way:

• You normally have to have appealed and lost first. Applying without a direct appeal requires exceptional circumstances, which the CCRC describes as rare. Being unable to find a solicitor, or having been told you have no grounds, does not count.
• There must be new evidence or a new legal argument the court has not already heard. Repeating an argument the jury or the Court of Appeal rejected is not enough.
• The CCRC does not overturn convictions. It refers cases. The Court of Appeal then decides whether a conviction is unsafe.

These five also had something unusual: the highest court in the country had already ruled on the exact legal point, in trials effectively the same as theirs. That is why the CCRC could say there was no distinguishing factor. Most applicants do not have that, and most applications do not end in a referral.

What this means for you

• A conviction is not necessarily the end of the matter because you lost your appeal and the deadline passed long ago. There is a route, it costs nothing to use, and the passage of time is not by itself a bar. Our guide to criminal appeal time limits explains the ordinary deadlines and how late applications are handled.
• What matters is whether there is something the court has not already considered. A higher court ruling on a point of law that was handled the wrong way at your trial is one example. Evidence that was never put before the jury is another.
• If a higher court has recently ruled on a legal point that was central to your trial, check it against your own papers — specifically the judge's directions to the jury, in the summing-up.
• Being unhappy with the verdict is not a ground. Identifying something that went wrong, which the court has not already ruled on, is a different thing entirely.
• Do not read this story as a sign your own case will be reopened. Five convictions were quashed this week. Many thousands were not.

Where to start if you think a legal error affected your case

Start with your own paperwork: the indictment, the judge's summing-up and directions to the jury, the sentencing remarks, and any previous grounds of appeal with the court's response. That is where a legal error shows up, and it is what the CCRC will want to see.

Case Review UK provides independent written assessments of criminal cases by senior UK lawyers and barristers, at the pre-trial, post-sentence and post-appeal stages. Fixed fee, no hourly billing. You send the documents securely and you get a written report in 7 to 14 days that says honestly what the paperwork shows, independent of the police, the CPS and the court that dealt with the case — including when it shows nothing worth pursuing. Our appeals and CCRC guidance page sets out what that review covers.

WhatsApp: +44 7417 361696
Email: enquiries@casereviewuk.co.uk

This article is general information about the law in England and Wales. It is not legal advice on any individual case, and a case review is not a substitute for a solicitor.